countymadbel wrote: October 18th, 2022, 6:12 pm At the end of the day yes it could be a wind up and until mr. Pratt comes forward with his plans, what money he would like to invest etc we won't know. I've been around when Sherman was around so know the pitfalls, but please don't scare him off as you NEVER KNOW he could be the real deal and our savour.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: October 18th, 2022, 6:26 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: October 18th, 2022, 6:04 pm

Some of the attitudes being expressed on this topic I’m now beginning to understand how the hybrid model was strangled at birth, there is simply no active interest in encouraging outside money into our Club.

It really is straightforward. Either you are very careful to the point of scepticism, and examine any proposal from a person outside the club with a great deal of care. Which is what I would do. And I suspect yourself would do.

Or you find every excuse from the ridiculous to the absolute bollox to defend ignoring potential investors.
Which is supported by the usual crowd.

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 6:59 pm
You have not got a clue Stan about how to conduct professional investment / acquisition discussions that is becoming clear.

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: October 18th, 2022, 6:04 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:57 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:24 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:04 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: October 18th, 2022, 4:50 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 4:41 pm
How do you know that - the fact he has not been able to successfully engage with the Board and resorted to FB suggests not - Football clubs will receive a number of investment opportunities I have no doubt. Disclosure works both ways it is not for our club to open their books without confidence the party concerned is genuine is all areas.

I agree entirely that disclosure works both ways. I agree entirely that the club should not open the books until they/we have confidence that the potential investor is genuine in all areas. You would need to be a complete moron to believe otherwise.

Having said I agree with you on that can I ask you one simple question?

Do you agree with me that only a complete moron would not hold preliminary discussions to establish whether or not Mr Pratt is genuine in all areas?

I would not waste time unless Mr Pratt was able to verify his position - there are so many time wasters in the world a complete moron as you say would hold preliminary discussions with them all.

How do you propose to do that?

You can just pictureit can't you?

"Well Gav, what's it saying?"

"Hang on a moment Kev, the mists have yet to clear. You can't hurry the crystal ball. I see a tall, fair, handsome stranger."

"Yes? Is it Pratt"

"It is, and he hasn't got a pot to piss in."

"I knew it, I knew it."

"Oh f@ck it, it's not Pratt, it's a prat. It's that f@cker Einstein. And he's shouting"

"What's he saying?"

"He's saying that crystal balls, tarot cards and Ouija boards are a load of bollox and we should just arrange a preliminary meeting."

"

Stan professional investors / buyers know they have to provide verification and allow advisors to consider execution risk and the strength of the NDA prior to preliminary discussions, a serious party would also have an advisor on board. The Board are spot on not wasting time until the approach is at the appropriate professional level, not just a possible chancer doing a bit of keyboard research and using buzz words in his pitch on Facebook.

Is it wasting time or a discourtesy in not even acknowledging the written enquiry from a potential investor? Yes there are many protocols to go through, and yes it may turn out to be a complete waste of time, on the other hand!!!

Some of the attitudes being expressed on this topic I’m now beginning to understand how the hybrid model was strangled at birth, there is simply no active interest in encouraging outside money into our Club.

whoareya wrote: October 18th, 2022, 7:32 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: October 18th, 2022, 6:04 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:57 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:24 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:04 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: October 18th, 2022, 4:50 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 4:41 pm
How do you know that - the fact he has not been able to successfully engage with the Board and resorted to FB suggests not - Football clubs will receive a number of investment opportunities I have no doubt. Disclosure works both ways it is not for our club to open their books without confidence the party concerned is genuine is all areas.

I agree entirely that disclosure works both ways. I agree entirely that the club should not open the books until they/we have confidence that the potential investor is genuine in all areas. You would need to be a complete moron to believe otherwise.

Having said I agree with you on that can I ask you one simple question?

Do you agree with me that only a complete moron would not hold preliminary discussions to establish whether or not Mr Pratt is genuine in all areas?

I would not waste time unless Mr Pratt was able to verify his position - there are so many time wasters in the world a complete moron as you say would hold preliminary discussions with them all.

How do you propose to do that?

You can just pictureit can't you?

"Well Gav, what's it saying?"

"Hang on a moment Kev, the mists have yet to clear. You can't hurry the crystal ball. I see a tall, fair, handsome stranger."

"Yes? Is it Pratt"

"It is, and he hasn't got a pot to piss in."

"I knew it, I knew it."

"Oh f@ck it, it's not Pratt, it's a prat. It's that f@cker Einstein. And he's shouting"

"What's he saying?"

"He's saying that crystal balls, tarot cards and Ouija boards are a load of bollox and we should just arrange a preliminary meeting."

"

Stan professional investors / buyers know they have to provide verification and allow advisors to consider execution risk and the strength of the NDA prior to preliminary discussions, a serious party would also have an advisor on board. The Board are spot on not wasting time until the approach is at the appropriate professional level, not just a possible chancer doing a bit of keyboard research and using buzz words in his pitch on Facebook.

Is it wasting time or a discourtesy in not even acknowledging the written enquiry from a potential investor? Yes there are many protocols to go through, and yes it may turn out to be a complete waste of time, on the other hand!!!

Some of the attitudes being expressed on this topic I’m now beginning to understand how the hybrid model was strangled at birth, there is simply no active interest in encouraging outside money into our Club.

If you bother to look back at the Trust meeting minutes of 2018 you'll see that 75% of the circa 420 respondents were in favour of the hybrid model.

But what has happened since then is a reasonable question to ask.

Amberexile wrote: October 18th, 2022, 7:47 pm

whoareya wrote: October 18th, 2022, 7:32 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: October 18th, 2022, 6:04 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:57 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:24 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:04 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: October 18th, 2022, 4:50 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 4:41 pm
How do you know that - the fact he has not been able to successfully engage with the Board and resorted to FB suggests not - Football clubs will receive a number of investment opportunities I have no doubt. Disclosure works both ways it is not for our club to open their books without confidence the party concerned is genuine is all areas.

I agree entirely that disclosure works both ways. I agree entirely that the club should not open the books until they/we have confidence that the potential investor is genuine in all areas. You would need to be a complete moron to believe otherwise.

Having said I agree with you on that can I ask you one simple question?

Do you agree with me that only a complete moron would not hold preliminary discussions to establish whether or not Mr Pratt is genuine in all areas?

I would not waste time unless Mr Pratt was able to verify his position - there are so many time wasters in the world a complete moron as you say would hold preliminary discussions with them all.

How do you propose to do that?

You can just pictureit can't you?

"Well Gav, what's it saying?"

"Hang on a moment Kev, the mists have yet to clear. You can't hurry the crystal ball. I see a tall, fair, handsome stranger."

"Yes? Is it Pratt"

"It is, and he hasn't got a pot to piss in."

"I knew it, I knew it."

"Oh f@ck it, it's not Pratt, it's a prat. It's that f@cker Einstein. And he's shouting"

"What's he saying?"

"He's saying that crystal balls, tarot cards and Ouija boards are a load of bollox and we should just arrange a preliminary meeting."

"

Stan professional investors / buyers know they have to provide verification and allow advisors to consider execution risk and the strength of the NDA prior to preliminary discussions, a serious party would also have an advisor on board. The Board are spot on not wasting time until the approach is at the appropriate professional level, not just a possible chancer doing a bit of keyboard research and using buzz words in his pitch on Facebook.

Is it wasting time or a discourtesy in not even acknowledging the written enquiry from a potential investor? Yes there are many protocols to go through, and yes it may turn out to be a complete waste of time, on the other hand!!!

Some of the attitudes being expressed on this topic I’m now beginning to understand how the hybrid model was strangled at birth, there is simply no active interest in encouraging outside money into our Club.

If you bother to look back at the Trust meeting minutes of 2018 you'll see that 75% of the circa 420 respondents were in favour of the hybrid model.

But what has happened since then is a reasonable question to ask.

The Board, as promised, set up the first of an intended series of workshops to take the hybrid idea forward. That meeting was poorly attended and at it, the consensus was that the idea should be dropped. Perhaps the answer the Board at the time wanted?

Amberexile wrote: October 18th, 2022, 7:47 pm

whoareya wrote: October 18th, 2022, 7:32 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: October 18th, 2022, 6:04 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:57 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:24 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:04 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: October 18th, 2022, 4:50 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 4:41 pm
How do you know that - the fact he has not been able to successfully engage with the Board and resorted to FB suggests not - Football clubs will receive a number of investment opportunities I have no doubt. Disclosure works both ways it is not for our club to open their books without confidence the party concerned is genuine is all areas.

I agree entirely that disclosure works both ways. I agree entirely that the club should not open the books until they/we have confidence that the potential investor is genuine in all areas. You would need to be a complete moron to believe otherwise.

Having said I agree with you on that can I ask you one simple question?

Do you agree with me that only a complete moron would not hold preliminary discussions to establish whether or not Mr Pratt is genuine in all areas?

I would not waste time unless Mr Pratt was able to verify his position - there are so many time wasters in the world a complete moron as you say would hold preliminary discussions with them all.

How do you propose to do that?

You can just pictureit can't you?

"Well Gav, what's it saying?"

"Hang on a moment Kev, the mists have yet to clear. You can't hurry the crystal ball. I see a tall, fair, handsome stranger."

"Yes? Is it Pratt"

"It is, and he hasn't got a pot to piss in."

"I knew it, I knew it."

"Oh f@ck it, it's not Pratt, it's a prat. It's that f@cker Einstein. And he's shouting"

"What's he saying?"

"He's saying that crystal balls, tarot cards and Ouija boards are a load of bollox and we should just arrange a preliminary meeting."

"

Stan professional investors / buyers know they have to provide verification and allow advisors to consider execution risk and the strength of the NDA prior to preliminary discussions, a serious party would also have an advisor on board. The Board are spot on not wasting time until the approach is at the appropriate professional level, not just a possible chancer doing a bit of keyboard research and using buzz words in his pitch on Facebook.

Is it wasting time or a discourtesy in not even acknowledging the written enquiry from a potential investor? Yes there are many protocols to go through, and yes it may turn out to be a complete waste of time, on the other hand!!!

Some of the attitudes being expressed on this topic I’m now beginning to understand how the hybrid model was strangled at birth, there is simply no active interest in encouraging outside money into our Club.

If you bother to look back at the Trust meeting minutes of 2018 you'll see that 75% of the circa 420 respondents were in favour of the hybrid model.

But what has happened since then is a reasonable question to ask.

The Board, as promised, set up the first of an intended series of workshops to take the hybrid idea forward. That meeting was poorly attended and at it, the consensus was that the idea should be dropped. Perhaps the answer the Board at the time wanted?

lowandhard wrote: October 18th, 2022, 7:54 pm

Amberexile wrote: October 18th, 2022, 7:47 pm

whoareya wrote: October 18th, 2022, 7:32 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: October 18th, 2022, 6:04 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:57 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:24 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:04 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: October 18th, 2022, 4:50 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 4:41 pm
How do you know that - the fact he has not been able to successfully engage with the Board and resorted to FB suggests not - Football clubs will receive a number of investment opportunities I have no doubt. Disclosure works both ways it is not for our club to open their books without confidence the party concerned is genuine is all areas.

I agree entirely that disclosure works both ways. I agree entirely that the club should not open the books until they/we have confidence that the potential investor is genuine in all areas. You would need to be a complete moron to believe otherwise.

Having said I agree with you on that can I ask you one simple question?

Do you agree with me that only a complete moron would not hold preliminary discussions to establish whether or not Mr Pratt is genuine in all areas?

I would not waste time unless Mr Pratt was able to verify his position - there are so many time wasters in the world a complete moron as you say would hold preliminary discussions with them all.

How do you propose to do that?

You can just pictureit can't you?

"Well Gav, what's it saying?"

"Hang on a moment Kev, the mists have yet to clear. You can't hurry the crystal ball. I see a tall, fair, handsome stranger."

"Yes? Is it Pratt"

"It is, and he hasn't got a pot to piss in."

"I knew it, I knew it."

"Oh f@ck it, it's not Pratt, it's a prat. It's that f@cker Einstein. And he's shouting"

"What's he saying?"

"He's saying that crystal balls, tarot cards and Ouija boards are a load of bollox and we should just arrange a preliminary meeting."

"

Stan professional investors / buyers know they have to provide verification and allow advisors to consider execution risk and the strength of the NDA prior to preliminary discussions, a serious party would also have an advisor on board. The Board are spot on not wasting time until the approach is at the appropriate professional level, not just a possible chancer doing a bit of keyboard research and using buzz words in his pitch on Facebook.

Is it wasting time or a discourtesy in not even acknowledging the written enquiry from a potential investor? Yes there are many protocols to go through, and yes it may turn out to be a complete waste of time, on the other hand!!!

Some of the attitudes being expressed on this topic I’m now beginning to understand how the hybrid model was strangled at birth, there is simply no active interest in encouraging outside money into our Club.

If you bother to look back at the Trust meeting minutes of 2018 you'll see that 75% of the circa 420 respondents were in favour of the hybrid model.

But what has happened since then is a reasonable question to ask.

The Board, as promised, set up the first of an intended series of workshops to take the hybrid idea forward. That meeting was poorly attended and at it, the consensus was that the idea should be dropped. Perhaps the answer the Board at the time wanted?

I for one don’t remember any such meeting being arranged

Stow Hill Sid wrote: October 18th, 2022, 7:56 pm

lowandhard wrote: October 18th, 2022, 7:54 pm

Amberexile wrote: October 18th, 2022, 7:47 pm

whoareya wrote: October 18th, 2022, 7:32 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: October 18th, 2022, 6:04 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:57 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:24 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 5:04 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: October 18th, 2022, 4:50 pm

County ranger wrote: October 18th, 2022, 4:41 pm
How do you know that - the fact he has not been able to successfully engage with the Board and resorted to FB suggests not - Football clubs will receive a number of investment opportunities I have no doubt. Disclosure works both ways it is not for our club to open their books without confidence the party concerned is genuine is all areas.

I agree entirely that disclosure works both ways. I agree entirely that the club should not open the books until they/we have confidence that the potential investor is genuine in all areas. You would need to be a complete moron to believe otherwise.

Having said I agree with you on that can I ask you one simple question?

Do you agree with me that only a complete moron would not hold preliminary discussions to establish whether or not Mr Pratt is genuine in all areas?

I would not waste time unless Mr Pratt was able to verify his position - there are so many time wasters in the world a complete moron as you say would hold preliminary discussions with them all.

How do you propose to do that?

You can just pictureit can't you?

"Well Gav, what's it saying?"

"Hang on a moment Kev, the mists have yet to clear. You can't hurry the crystal ball. I see a tall, fair, handsome stranger."

"Yes? Is it Pratt"

"It is, and he hasn't got a pot to piss in."

"I knew it, I knew it."

"Oh f@ck it, it's not Pratt, it's a prat. It's that f@cker Einstein. And he's shouting"

"What's he saying?"

"He's saying that crystal balls, tarot cards and Ouija boards are a load of bollox and we should just arrange a preliminary meeting."

"

Stan professional investors / buyers know they have to provide verification and allow advisors to consider execution risk and the strength of the NDA prior to preliminary discussions, a serious party would also have an advisor on board. The Board are spot on not wasting time until the approach is at the appropriate professional level, not just a possible chancer doing a bit of keyboard research and using buzz words in his pitch on Facebook.

Is it wasting time or a discourtesy in not even acknowledging the written enquiry from a potential investor? Yes there are many protocols to go through, and yes it may turn out to be a complete waste of time, on the other hand!!!

Some of the attitudes being expressed on this topic I’m now beginning to understand how the hybrid model was strangled at birth, there is simply no active interest in encouraging outside money into our Club.

If you bother to look back at the Trust meeting minutes of 2018 you'll see that 75% of the circa 420 respondents were in favour of the hybrid model.

But what has happened since then is a reasonable question to ask.

The Board, as promised, set up the first of an intended series of workshops to take the hybrid idea forward. That meeting was poorly attended and at it, the consensus was that the idea should be dropped. Perhaps the answer the Board at the time wanted?

I for one don’t remember any such meeting being arranged

Me neither.

whoareya wrote: October 18th, 2022, 8:50 pm Why, because they couldn't be arsed to do so at the time when they had the chance, but it should all be revisited now because a handful of posters on an unofficial forum who couldn't be arsed back then but now want to because of some vague discussion about investment has been posted on Facebook?

Baladabadi wrote: October 18th, 2022, 9:05 pm I think this is the new potential investor, looks legit, so let's hope this has legs.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-pratt-a9165487